arxiv: v1 [math.na] 6 Dec 2010

Transcription

1 MULTILEVEL PRECONDITIONERS FOR DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN APPROXIMATIONS OF ELLIPTIC PROBLEMS WITH JUMP COEFFICIENTS BLANCA AYUSO DE DIOS, MICHAEL HOLST, YUNRONG ZHU, AND LUDMIL ZIKATANOV arxiv: v1 [mat.na] 6 Dec 2010 Abstract. In tis article we develop and analyze two-level and multi-level metods for te family of Interior Penalty (IP) discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretizations of second order elliptic problems wit roug coefficients (exibiting large jumps across interfaces in te domain). Tese metods are based on a decomposition of te DG finite element space tat inerently inges on te diffusion coefficient of te problem. Our analysis of te proposed preconditioners is presented for bot symmetric and non-symmetric IP scemes, and we establis bot robustness wit respect to te jump in te coefficient and near-optimality wit respect to te mes size. Following te analysis, we present a sequence of detailed numerical results wic verify te teory and illustrate te performance of te metods. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Discontinuous Galerkin Metods 4 3. Space decomposition of te V DG space 8 4. Solvers for IP-0 metods Solution on Z β Robust preconditioners on V CR Two level preconditioner for A 0 (, ) on V CR A stable Decomposition Multilevel Preconditioner for A 0 (, ) on V CR Solvers for IP-1 Metods Solvers for te SIPG metod Solvers for te non-symmetric IIPG-1 and NIPG-1 metods Numerical Experiments Solver for IP(β)-0 metod Solvers for SIPG(β) Solvers for Nonsymmetric IP(β)-1 Metods 27 Appendix A. Construction of te transfer operator P. 32 Appendix B. Proof of (5.19) and (5.18) 39 References 40 Date: December 7, Key words and prases. Multilevel preconditioner, discontinuous Galerkin metods, Crouzeix-Raviart finite elements. Te work of te first autor was partially supported by te Spanis MEC under projects MTM and HI Te work of te second autor was supported in part by NSF DMS , NSF DMS , and DTRA Award HDTRA Te work of te tird autor was supported in part by NSF DMS and DTRA Award HDTRA Te work of te fourt autor was supported in part by NSF DMS and NSF OCI

2 2 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV 1. Introduction In tis paper, we develop and analyze robust multilevel preconditioners for discontinuous Galerkin (DG) discretizations of te second order elliptic equation wit strongly discontinuous coefficients: { (κ u) = f in Ω, (1.1) u = 0 on Ω, were Ω IR d is a bounded polygon (for d = 2) or polyedron (for d = 3). Te scalar function κ = κ(x) denotes te diffusion coefficient wic is assumed to be piecewise constant wit respect to an initial non-overlapping subdomain partition of te domain Ω, denoted T S = {Ω m } M m=1 wit M m=1 Ω m = Ω and Ω o m Ω o n =. Altoug te (polygonal or polyedral) regions Ω m, m = 1... M migt ave complicated geometry, we will always assume tat tere is an initial triangulation T 0 suc tat κ T = κ(x) T is a constant for all T T 0. Problem (1.1) belongs to te class of interface or transmission problems, wic are relevant to many applications suc as groundwater flow [55], electromagnetics [54], semiconductor device modeling [32, 61], and fuel cells [76, 78]. Te coefficients in tese applications migt ave large discontinuities across te interfaces between different regions wit different material properties. Finite element discretizations of (1.1) lead to linear systems wit badly conditioned stiffness matrices; not only is te ill-conditioning wit respect to te mes size, but te condition numbers depend linearly on te largest jump in te coefficients. Muc researc as been devoted to developing efficient and robust preconditioners for use wit iterative metods for conforming finite element discretizations of (1.1). Te resulting preconditioners can be grouped into two basic classes of metods: non-overlapping and overlapping metods. Bot classes of preconditioners ave teir advantages and disadvantages, and as a result it is desirable to ave access to robust and efficient metods from bot classes. Domain decomposition Balancing Neumann- Neumann [59], FETI-DP [56] and Bramble-Pasciak-Scatz preconditioners [12] belong to te first class of metods (te non-overlapping metods). Tey ave been sown to be robust wit respect to coefficient variations and mes size (up to a logaritmic factor), in teory as well as practice, but only if special coarse spaces and coarse solvers (suc as tose based on discrete armonic extensions [43, 60, 44, 67]) are constructed (see also a survey paper by Xu and Zou [81] for many tecniques and references). Te class of overlapping metods encompasses, among oters, overlapping Scwarz metods, geometric multigrid, and more general Multivel metods, as suc te Bramble-Pasciak-Xu (BPX) preconditioner (see e.g. [13, 14, 79]). In practice, it as always been observed tat all tese metods, wen used as preconditioners in conjugate gradient iteration, result in efficient algoritms tat beave robustly wit respect to te jump in te coefficients, independently of te problem dimension. However, te first analyses sow robustness only in certain particular cases: quasi-monotonicity assumption on te coefficients [42]; space dimension d 2 [10]; or wen eac subdomain Ω m touces te Diriclet boundary [77, 63]. In general, tese teories predict a deterioration in te rate of convergence of multigrid and overlapping domain decomposition metods, wit respect to bot te coefficients and te mes size. An improvement in te rate of convergence can be acieved by resorting to basis stabilization tecniques [72], or by employing energy minimizing coarse spaces [75]. However, we note tat tere is a discrepancy between tese teoretical results and te convergence rate actually observed in practice. Tis is due to te fact tat te analysis approac used in earlier works was based mainly on te standard teory of CG (see for example [52, Teorem ], or [65, Teorem 6.29]) wic provides only bounds in te worst case scenario, and does not exploit te spectral structure of particular preconditioned system. Te preconditioned system may actually ave only a few small eigenvalues (depending on te coefficient distribution

3 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 3 and mes size), wile te oter eigenvalues are bounded nearly uniformly. Tis was first observed by [49, 74] for te simple Jacobi preconditioner. By using a more sopisticated approac to CG teory (see [6, Section 13.2], [7]) and considering te distribution of te spectrum of te preconditioned system, it is possible to sow tat te small eigenvalues do not influence te (observed) asymptotic convergence rate. Tis approac as been pursued in [80, 82], were it is sow tat bot standard multilevel and overlapping domain decomposition metods lead to nearly optimal preconditioners for CG algoritms. See also [27] for furter extensions in te case of igly graded adaptive meses. Wile preconditioners for conforming discretizations ave been considered by a number of researcers, less work as focused on te construction of preconditioners for non-conforming approximations of (1.1). In tis article, we consider preconditioners wen te family of Interior Penalty (IP) Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) metods are used to approximate (1.1). DG metods are designed to provide robust discretizations of partial differential equations of nearly any type, and can even andle equations wose type canges witin te computational domain. Tey are naturally suited for multi-pysics applications, and for problems wit igly varying material properties, suc as problem (1.1). Te development of efficient solvers for DG discretizations as been pursued only in te last ten years; owever, due to te growing importance of DG metods, tere is now considerable interest in tis area. Examples of overlapping preconditioners for nonconforming discretizations are found in [67, 66], were te analysis depends on te assumption tat te coefficient κ is quasi-monotone. Since te algoritms we develop ere contain te solution of systems corresponding to non-conforming discretizations of te model problem (1.1) as a part of te preconditioning step, te analysis presented ere gives bounds on te convergence rate for two level and multilevel metods for te lowest order non-conforming Crouseix-Raviart finite element discretizations. Wile classical approaces ave been successfully extended for second order elliptic problems, discontinuous nature of te underlying finite element spaces as motivated te creation of new tecniques for te design of solvers. Additive Scwarz metods (of overlapping and nonoverlapping type) are considered and analyzed in [45, 39, 2, 3, 4, 11]. Multigrid metods are studied in [48, 21, 20, 19, 64, 31]. Two level metods are presented in [35, 23, 24]. More general multi-level metods based on algebraic tecniques are considered in [58, 57]. However, except from several numerical experiments reported in [35, 34, 3, 36, 57], all tese works deal wit te case of a smootly or slowly varying diffusivity coefficient. For problem (1.1), only in [39, 40, 41] te autors introduce and analyze non-overlapping BBDC and FETI-DP domain decomposition preconditioners for a Symmetric Interior Penalty discretization of (1.1). Te DG discretization in only used on te skeleton of te subdomain partition, wile a standard conforming approximation is used in te interior of te subdomains. Robustness and quasi-optimality is sown for te Additive and Hybrid BBDC [40] and FETI-DP [41] preconditioners, even for te case of non-matcing grids. Te analysis of te first preconditioner requires an interface condition relating te magnitude of te coefficient and te mes-size. Te goal of tis article is to design, and provide a rigorous analysis of, a simple multilevel solver (belonging to te overlapping category), for te family of Interior Penalty metods for approximating (1.1). Togeter wit te family of IPDG metods (including symmetric and non-symmetric metods), we consider te corresponding family of weakly penalized or IPDG-0 metods (called Type-0 in [9]). Our approac follows te ideas in [9], and it is based on a splitting of te DG space into two components tat are ortogonal in an energy inner product (more precisely, in te energy inner product induced by te IPDG-0 metods). Rougly speaking, te construction amounts to identifying a low frequency space (Crouzeix-Raviart elements) and ten defining a second complementary space. Suc a decomposition turns out to be critical to te design of robust preconditioners in te case of PDEs wit roug coefficients, suc as problem (1.1). However, a notable difference takes place in te decomposition of te DG space

4 4 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV introduced for te Laplace equation [25, 9]. For problem (1.1), a stable decomposition can be obtained by introducing subspaces tat depend on te coefficient κ, and tis is certainly related to te splittings used in algebraic multigrid (AMG [16]), were one seeks space decompositions depending on te operator at and. In addition, bot components of te splitting ave a locally supported basis. As we will sow, te analytical results and te preconditioning tecniques obtained troug te decomposition introduced in [9] for te Laplace equation can be extended to te case of problem (1.1) wit jumps in te coefficients. Wit te ortogonal splitting of te DG space at and, te solution of problem (1.1) reduces to solving two sub-problems; a non-conforming approximation to (1.1), and a problem in te complementary space containing ig oscillatory error components. We sow tat te latter problem is easy to solve, since it is spectrally equivalent to its diagonal form, and terefore CG wit a diagonal preconditioner is a uniform and robust solver. For te former problem, tat is te approximation in te low frequency or Crouziex-Raviart space, we develop and analyze a two-level (overlapping) metod and a BPX preconditioner. In fact, te teory for te BPX type multilevel preconditioner follows easily from te analysis of te two-level metod. We follow te approac taken in [80, 82] involving estimating te asymptotic rate of convergence of te preconditioned system. Neverteless, dealing simultaneously wit te jump in te coefficient κ and te non-nested caracter of te CR spaces presents extra difficulties in te analysis wic preclude from a simple extension of te works [80, 82]. We are able to establis nearly optimal convergence and robustness (wit respect to bot te mes size and te coefficient κ) for te two-level metod and for te BPX preconditioner (up to a logaritmic term depending on te mes size). Te resulting algoritms involve te use of a solver in te CR space tat is reduced to a smooting step followed by conforming solver. Terefore, in particular one can argue tat any of te robust and efficient solvers designed for conforming approximation of problem (1.1) could be used as a preconditioner ere. Te solvers are sown to be robust and uniformly convergent for symmetric IPDG-1 metods. For te non-symmetric IIPG and NIPG we propose two preconditioners; te symmetric part and a block-jacobi-two level metod. For te former, we indicate ow te teory for second order problems in [9] can be successfully extended to cover problem (1.1), once te provisions given in tis paper are taken into account. Unfortunately, for te latter, in spite of its simplicity, we are not able to provide a complete teory at tis time, and it will be subject of future researc. Outline of te paper. Te rest of te paper is organized as follows. We introduce te IPDG-1 and IPDG-0 metods for approximating (1.1) in 2 and revise some of teir properties. Te space decomposition of DG finite element space is introduced in 3. Consequences of te space splitting and solvers for te IPDG-0 metods are described in 4. Te two-level and multi-level metods for te Crouziex-Raviart approximation are constructed and analyzed in Section5.2 (see 5.3). Section 6 is devoted to te design and analysis of te solvers for bot te IPDG-0 and IPDG-1 family. Numerical experiments are included in 7, to verify te teory and assess te performance and robustness of te proposed preconditioners. Te paper is completed wit an Appendix were we ave collected proofs of several tecnical results required in our analyses. 2. Discontinuous Galerkin Metods In tis section, we introduce te basic notation and describe te DG metods we consider for approximating problem (1.1). To begin, given a triangulation T of te domain Ω, we denote E := E o E te set of all edges (2D) /faces (3D) of T, were E o is te set of all interior edges/faces, and E is te set of all boundary edges/faces. Trougout te paper we sall use te standard notation for Sobolev spaces and teir norms. We denote H 2 (T ) as te set of element-wise H 2 functions, and denote L 2 (E ) as te set of L 2 functions defined on E. We will also use te notation x 1 y 1, and x 2 y 2, wenever tere exist constants C 1, C 2 independent

5 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 5 of te mes size and te coefficient κ or oter parameters tat x 1, x 2, y 1 and y 2 may depend on, and suc tat x 1 C 1 y 1 and x 2 C 2 y 2. Trace Operators. Following [5], we recall te definition of te average and jump trace operators for scalar and vector-valued functions. Let T + and T be two neigboring elements, and n +, n be teir outward normal unit vectors, respectively (n ± = n T ±). Let ζ ± and τ ± be te restriction of ζ and τ to T ±. We set: {ζ } = 1 2 (ζ+ + ζ ), [ζ ] = ζ + n + + ζ n on e E o, (2.1) {τ } = 1 2 (τ + + τ ), [τ ] = τ + n + + τ n on e E o, We also define te weigted average, { } δ, for any δ = {δ e } e E o, wit δ e [0, 1] e, : {ζ } δ = δ e ζ + + (1 δ e )ζ, {τ } δ = δ e τ + + (1 δ e )τ, on e E o. (2.2) For e E, we set [ζ ] = ζn, {τ } = {τ } δ = τ on e E. (2.3) We will also use te notation (u, w) T = uwdx u, w L 2 (Ω), u, w E = uw u, w, L 2 (E ). e E T T T Te DG approximation to te model problem (1.1) can be written as Find u V DG suc tat A DG (u, w) = (f, w) T, w V DG, (2.4) were A DG (, ) is te bilinear form defining te metod and can be of two different types. For te Type-1 family of weigted IP metods (see [70]) we set A DG (, ) = A(, ) were: A(u, w) = (κ u, w) T {κ u } βe, [w ] E + θ [u ], {κ w } βe E + α e 1 e κ e [u ], [w ] E, u, w V DG. Te weigt β = {β e } e E o, depends on te coefficient κ and terefore it migt vary over all interior edges/faces. For any e E o wit e = T + T, we set β e as follows: κ β e = κ + + κ were κ± = κ, (2.6) T ± and we define te coefficient κ e as te armonic mean of κ + and κ : e (2.5) κ e := 2κ+ κ κ + + κ. (2.7) Remark 2.1. We remark tat one could take κ e as min{κ +, κ } since bot are equivalent: min {κ +, κ } κ e = 2κ+ κ κ + + κ 2 min {κ+, κ } κ ±. (2.8) Te equivalence relations in (2.8) sow tat te results on spectral equivalence and uniform preconditioning given later on for (2.5) wit κ e defined in (2.7) (te armonic mean), will automatically old for metod (2.5) wit κ e := min {κ +, κ }. To fix te notation and to simplify te presentation we use te armonic mean as κ e [see (2.7)]. Te symmetric metod was first considered in [70] and later in [38, Section 4] for variable coefficient (altoug tere it was written using a sligtly different notation and DG was only used in te skeleton of te partition). It was later extended to advection-diffusion problems in [26] and [33]. In (2.5), θ = 1 gives te SIPG(β); θ = 1 leads to NIPG(β); and θ = 0 gives te IIPG(β) discretizations. Te penalty parameter α e > 0 is set to a positive constant; and for

6 6 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV θ 1 sould be taken large enoug to ensure coercivity of te corresponding bilinear forms. We also introduce te corresponding family of IP(β)-0 metods, wic use mid point quadrature rule for computing all te integrals in (2.5). Tat is, we set A DG (, ) = A 0 (, ) wit A 0 (u, w) = (κ u, w) T {κ u } βe, [w ] E + θ [u], {κ w } βe E + α e 1 e κ e P 0 e ([u ]), P 0 e ([w ]) E, u, w V DG. (2.9) were P 0 e : L 2 (E ) P 0 (E ) is te L 2 -projection onto te piecewise constants on E. We note tat tis projection satisfies P 0 e L 2 (E ) = 1. Weigted Residual Formulation. Following [22] we can rewrite te two families of IP metods in te weigted residual framework: for all u, w V DG, A(u, w) = ( (κ u ), w) T + [κ u ], {w } 1 βe E o + [u ], B 1 (w) E, (2.10) A 0 (u, w) = ( (κ u ), w) T + [κ u ], {w } 1 βe E o + [u ], P 0 e (B 1 (w)) E, (2.11) were B 1 is defined as: B 1 (w) = θ {κ w } βe + α e 1 e κ e [w ], e E. (2.12) Trougout te paper bot te weigted residual formulation (2.10)-(2.11) and te standard one (2.5)-(2.9) will be used intercangeably. Continuity and Coercivity. Te family of metods (2.5) and (2.9) can be sown to provide an accurate and robust approximation to te solution of (1.1). We define te energy norm DG : u 2 DG := κ T u 2 0,T + κ e 1 e [u ] 2 0,e. (2.13) T T e E For te classical IP metods, te bilinear form A(, ) is continuous and coercive in te above norm, wit constants independent of te mes size and te coefficient κ: Continuity: A(u, w) u DG w DG, u, w V DG (2.14) Coercivity: A(u, u ) u 2 DG, u V DG. (2.15) Te proof of (2.15) and (2.14) is standard and could be found in [38]. We sketc it ere for completeness. Note first tat for eac e E o, suc tat e = T + T, te weigted average {κ u } βe can be rewritten as: {κ u } βe = β e (κ + ( u) + ) + (1 β e )(κ ( u) ) = κ κ + + κ κ+ ( u) + + κ+ κ + + κ κ ( u) = κ+ κ κ + + κ [( u)+ + ( u) ] = κ e { u }. (2.16) Te trace inequality [1], te inverse inequality [29], and (2.8) ten imply te following bounds ( ) e {κ u } βe 2 0,e C t (κ e ) 2 u 2 0,T + T + 2 u 2 1,T + T ) (2.17) 2(κ e )C t (1 + Cinv) (κ 2 + u 2 0,T + κ u 2 + 0,T

7 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 7 Ten, using Caucy-Scwarz inequality, te estimate (2.17), and te aritmetic-geometric inequality we ave {κ u } βe, [w ] E = κ e { u }[w ]ds e E e 1/2 1 e κ e { u } 2 0,e α e 1 e κ e [w ] 2 0,e α e e E e E 8C t(1 + Cinv 2 ) κ T u 2 0,T + 1 α e 1 e κ e [w ] 2 0,e α e 4 T T e E Ten, (2.14) follows from Caucy-Scwarz inequality and te estimate (2.18). Te inequality (2.15) is proved by setting w = u in (2.5) and taking into account te estimate (2.18) (also wit w = u). We ave, A(u, u) = κ T u 2 0,T + α e T T κ e 1 e e E u 2 DG 1 θ {κ u } βe, [u] E ( 1 8C t(1 + Cinv 2 ) ) κ T u 2 0,T + α e T T [u] 2 0,e (1 θ) {κ u } βe, [u] E 4 1 θ α e κ e 1 e [u] 2 0,e, 4 e E and (2.15) follows immediately by taking α e large enoug (if θ 1). Moreover, notice tat bot constants in (2.14) and (2.15) depend on te sape regularity of te mes partition but are independent of te coefficient κ. For te IP-0 metods (2.9), similar properties can also be easily sown to old following te same arguments, albeit in a different energy norm, defined as: u 2 DG0 := κ T u 2 0,T + κ e 1 e Pe 0 ([u]) 2 0,e. (2.18) T T e E For bot families of metods, optimal error estimates in te energy norms (2.13) and (2.18) can be sown, arguing as in [5]. See also [8] for furter discussion on te L 2 -error analysis of tese metods. We now establis te spectral equivalence between A(, ) and A 0 (, ). Lemma 2.2. Let A(, ) be a bilinear form corresponding to a Type-1 IP(β) metod (2.5) and let A 0 (, ) be te corresponding Type-0 bilinear form as defined in (2.9). Ten tere exists a positive constant c 0 = c 0 (α), depending only on te sape regularity of te mes and te penalty parameter α (but independent of te coefficient κ and te mes size ) suc tat, A 0 (u, u) A(u, u) c 0 (α)a 0 (u, u) u V DG. (2.19) Proof. Te lower bound follows immediately from te fact tat te projection Pe 0 is an L 2 (e)- ortogonal projection and terefore as norm 1. To sow te upper bound it is enoug to sow tat α e 1 e κ e [u] 2 0,e C( κ T u 2 0,T + α e 1 e κ e Pe 0 [u] 2 0,e). (2.20) e E T T e E Adding and subtracting P 0 e [u] in te term on te left side above and using again tat P 0 e is te L 2 (e)-ortogonal projection on te constant functions we ave for eac face e, [u] 2 0,e = P 0 e ([u]) 2 0,e + [u] P 0 e ([u]) 2 0,e. (2.21)

8 8 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV Hence, we only need to estimate te last term on te rigt side of te above inequality and sow tat tis term is bounded by te rigt side in te inequality given in (2.20). Observe tat on eac e E, e = T + T, [u] P 0 e ([u]) 2 0,e u + P 0 e (u + ) 2 0,e + u P 0 e (u ) 2 0,e. In [9, Lemma 2.1] it was furter sown tat 1 e u ± P 0 e (u ± ) 2 0,e u ± 2 1,T ±. e E Tus, multiplying te above expression by te armonic average κ e and taking into account (2.8) we arrive at α e 1 e κ e [u] 2 0,e C(α) κ T u 2 0,T + α e 1 e κ e Pe 0 [u] 2 0,e, e E T T e E wic concludes te proof. 3. Space decomposition of te V DG space In tis section we introduce a decomposition of te V DG -space tat will play a key role in te design of te solvers for te DG discretizations (2.5) and (2.9). In [9] (see also [25]) it is sown tat te discontinuous piecewise linear finite element space V DG admits te decomposition: V DG = V CR Z were V CR denotes te standard Crouziex-Raviart space defined as V CR = { v L 2 (Ω) : v T P 1 (T ) T T and P 0 e ([v ] n) = 0 e E o }, (3.1) and te complementary space Z is a space containing functions aving zero averages at te midpoints of te internal edges: Z = { z L 2 (Ω) : z T P 1 (T ) T T and P 0 e {v } = 0, e E o }. In [9] it was sown tat tis decomposition satisfies A 0 (v, z) = 0, for all v V CR and z Z. We now modify te definition of Z above in order to account for te presence of a coefficient in te problem (1.1); we define Z β = { z L 2 (Ω) : z T P 1 (T ) T T and P 0 e ( {z } 1 βe ) = 0, e E o }, (3.2) were te weigt β was defined earlier in (2.6). Note tat te weigt β depends on te coefficient κ, and, as a consequence, te space Z β is also coefficient dependent. In wat follows, we sall sow tat Z β is a space complementary to V CR in V DG and te corresponding decomposition as properties analogous to te properties of te decomposition V DG = V CR Z given in [9] for te Poisson problem. For any e E wit e T T, let ϕ e,t be te canonical Crouzeix-Raviart basis function on T, wic is defined by ϕ e,t T P 1 (T ), ϕ e,t (m e ) = δ e,e e E (T ), and ϕ e,t (x) = 0 x T, were m e is te mass center e. We will denote n T and n E as te number of simplices and faces (or edges wen d = 2) respectively. We also denote n BE as te number of boundary faces. Proposition 3.1. For any u V DG tere exists a unique v V CR and a unique z βe Z β suc tat u = v + z βe, tat is V DG = V CR Z β. (3.3) Proof. Trougout te proof, for simplicity, let us set β + = β e, β = (1 β e ), and ϕ ± e = ϕ e,t ± for any e E o wit e = T + T. We also denote ϕ e = ϕ e,t for any e E wit e = T Ω. Note tat dim V DG = (d + 1)n T = 2n E n BE,

9 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 9 and it is also obvious tat {ϕ ± e } e E o {ϕ e } e E form a basis for V DG. Notice tat β + + β = 1, terefore we can express any u V DG as u(x) = e E o u + (m e )ϕ + e (x) + e E o u (m e )ϕ e (x) + e E = (β u + (m e ) + β + u (m e ))(ϕ + e (x) + ϕ e (x)) e E o = e E o u(m e )ϕ e (x) + e E(u + (m e ) u (m e ))(β + ϕ + e (x) β ϕ e (x)) + o e E ( ) 1 {u } 1 βe ds (ϕ + e (x) + ϕ e (x)) e e + ( 1 e e E o e = v(x) + z β (x). Ten for eac e E o, we set ϕ and let u(m e )ϕ e (x) ) [u]n + ds (β + ϕ + e (x) β ϕ e (x)) + ( ) 1 [u]nds ϕ e (x) e e E e ψ z e(x) := β + ϕ + e (x) β ϕ e (x) = CR e (x) := ϕ + e (x) + ϕ e (x), (3.4) { β + ϕ + e (x), x T + β ϕ e (x), x T, (3.5) and ψe(x) z := 0 for all x T + T. In te definition (3.5) of ψe(x), z we ave used ϕ e (x) = 0 for x T + and ϕ + e (x) = 0 for x T. Finally, wen e E wit e = T Ω for some T, we set It is ten straigtforward to ceck tat V CR ψ z e(x) = ϕ e (x), x T. (3.6) = span{ϕ CR e } e E o, and Z β = span{ψ z e} e E. Hence, for all u V DG tere are unique v V CR and z βe Z β defined by v = ( ) 1 {u } 1 βe ds ϕ CR e (x) V CR, e e E o e z β = ( ) 1 [u]n + ds ψ e e(x) z Z β. e E suc tat u = v + z β. Tis sows (3.3)and concludes te proof. e Remark 3.2. As we pointed out in te introduction, te definition of te subspace Z β clearly depends on te coefficient κ since β depends κ. Suc dependence is also often seen in algebraic multigrid analysis, were te coarse spaces depend on te operator, and are in fact constructed in tis way, te aim being to increase robustness of te metods. In te proof of Proposition 3.1 above we ave introduced te basis in bot V CR and Z β. Te canonical Crouzeix-Raviart basis functions are denoted wit {ϕ CR e } e E o for non-conforming and tese functions are continuous at te mass centers m e of te faces e E o. Te basis in Z β, {ψe} z e E consists of piecewise P 1 functions, wic are discontinuous across te faces in E. In fact, for any z Z β suc tat z = e E z e ψe z wit z e IR for any e E, we ave ([z ]n + )(m e ) = z e, e E.

10 10 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV To see tis, evaluating te jump of z at m e gives ([z ]n + )(m e ) = e E z e ([ψ z e ]n + )(m e ) = z e ([ψ z e ]n+ )(m e ) = { ze (β e (β e 1)) = z e, e E o, z e, e E. Tis relation will also be used later to obtain uniform diagonal preconditioners for te restrictions of A(, ) and A 0 (, ) on Z β. Remark 3.3. For mixed boundary value problems, tat is, Ω contains bot Neumann boundary Γ N and Diriclet boundary Γ D wit Ω = Γ D Γ N, te definition of te basis functions on te boundary faces [see (3.6)] need to be canged as: ψ CR e (x) = ϕ e,t (x), e = T Γ N, for all x T, ψ z e(x) = ϕ e,t (x), e = T Γ D, for all x T. Tus, in case Γ N te dimension of V CR is increased (by adding to it functions tat correspond to degrees of freedom on Γ N ) and te dimension of Z β is decreased accordingly. Clearly tings balance out correctly: te identity V DG = V CR Z β olds, and also te analysis carries out wit very little modification. Next lemma is a simple but a key observation used in te design of efficient solvers and preconditioners and it sows tat te restriction of A 0 (, ) : V DG V DG IR to V CR Z β vanises. Lemma 3.4. Let u V DG be suc tat u = v + z wit v V CR and z Z β. Let A 0 (, ) be te bilinear form defined in (2.9). Ten, A 0 (v, z) = 0 (3.7) v V CR, z Z β. (3.8) Furtermore if A 0 (, ) is symmetric, ten A 0 (v, z) = A 0 (z, v) = 0 for all v V CR, and for all z Z β and te decomposition (3.3) is A 0 -ortogonal, namely, V CR A0 Z β. Proof. From te weigted-residual form of A 0 (, ) given in (2.11), for all v V CR, and all z Z β we easily obtain A 0 (v, z) = ( (κ v), z) T + [κ v ], {z } 1 βe E o + [v ], P 0 e (B 1 (z)) E = 0. In te equation above, te first term is zero due to te fact tat v is linear in eac T and tat te coefficient κ is a constant on T ; te second term vanises from te definition of Z β (since [κ v ] is constant on eac e E o ) and last term vanises as well independently of te coice of θ (or equivalently te coice of B 1 (v)) from te definition of te space V CR. Moreover, in te case wen A 0 (, ) is symmetric and positive definite we ave tat A 0 (v, z) = A 0 (z, v), for all v V CR and for all z Z β. Tus, for te symmetric metod A 0 (, ), te spaces V CR and Z β are indeed A 0 -ortogonal. Te proof is complete. 4. Solvers for IP-0 metods In tis section we sow ow Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 3.4 can be used in te design and analysis of uniformly convergent iterative metods for te IP-0 metods. We follow te ideas and analysis introduced in [9] and point out te differences. We first consider te approximation to problem (1.1) wit A DG (, ) = A 0 (, ). To begin, let A 0 be te discrete operator defined by (A 0 u, w) = A 0 (u, w) and let A 0 be its matrix representation in te new basis (3.7). We denote by u = [z, v] T, f = [f z, f v ] T be te vector representation of te unknown function u and of te

11 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 11 rigt and side f, respectively, in tis new basis. A simple consequence of Lemma 3.4 is tat te matrix A0 (in tis basis) as block lower triangular structure: Azz 0 0 A0 =. (4.1) Avz Avv 0 0 vv CR, were Azz 0, A0 are te matrix representation of A0 restricted to te subspaces Zβ and V vz respectively, and A0 is te matrix representation of te term tat accounts for te coupling (or non-symmetry) A0 (ψ z, ϕcr ). As remarked earlier, for Type-0 SIPG(β) discretization, te stiffness matrix A0 is block-diagonal. Here, we ave given a 2D example, wit two squares Ω1 = [ 0.5, 0]2 and Ω2 = [0, 0.5]2 inside te domain Ω = [ 1, 1]2. We set te coefficients κ(x) = 1 for all x Ω1 Ω2 and κ(x) = 10 3 wen x Ω \ (Ω1 Ω2 ), see Figure 4.1. We coose te penalty parameter αe = 20 in (2.9). Figure 4.2 sows te sparsity patterns of te Type-0 IP(β) metods wit standard nodal basis, Figure 4.1. Computational domain and unstructured mes. wile Figure 4.3 sows te sparsity patterns of te stiffness matrices for te IP-0 (β) metods after canging from te standard nodal basis to te basis (3.4)-(3.5) induced by te splitting V DG = VCR Zβ. SIPG (nnz = 10834) IIPG (nnz = 8886) NIPG (nnz=10834) Figure 4.2. Non-zero pattern of te matrix representation in te standard nodal basis of te operators associated wit Type-0 IP metods. From left to rigt: SIPG, NIPG and IIPG metods. Clearly, as in te constant coefficient case, a simple algoritm based on a block version of forward substitution provides an exact solver for te solution of te linear systems wit coefficient matrix A0. A formal description of tis block forward substitution is given in te next Algoritm.

12 12 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV SIPG (nnz = 4906) IIPG (nnz =5305) NIPG (nnz=7331) Figure 4.3. Non-zero pattern of te matrix representations according to te basis (3.3) of te operator associated wit Type-0 IP metods;i.e., A0. From left to rigt: SIPG, NIPG and IIPG metods. Algoritm Find z Zβ suc tat A0 (z, ψ) = (f, ψ)t for all ψ Zβ 2. Find v V CR suc tat A0 (v, ϕ) = (f, ϕ)t A0 (z, ϕ) for all ϕ V CR 3. Set u = z + v Notice tat te above algoritm requires te solution of A0 (, ) on Zβ (Step 1. of te algoritm) and te solution of A0 (, ) on VCR (Step 2. of Algoritm 4.1). Unlike te situation in [9], due to te jump coefficient in (1.1), te solution on V CR is more involved, and terefore we postpone its discussion and analysis until Section 5. On te oter and, as we sow in te next section, te solution on Zβ (te space regarded as containing ig frequency components) can be andled efficiently using CG wit a diagonal preconditioner Solution on Zβ. Te first result in tis section establises te symmetry of te restrictions of te bilinear forms (of bot Type-0 and Type-1) on Zβ. Lemma 4.2. Let A(, ) be te bilinear form of a non-symmetric Type-1 IP metod as defined in (2.5) and let A0 (, ) be te corresponding Type-0 bilinear form. Ten te restrictions to Zβ of bot A0 (, ) and A(, ) are symmetric. Namely, for θ = 1, 0, 1 and for all z Zβ and φ Zβ we ave A0 (z, φ) = A0 (φ, z) and A(z, φ) = A(φ, z). Proof. If θ = 1 tere is noting to prove, since in tis case bot bilinear forms are symmetric. Hence we only consider te cases θ = 0 or θ = 1. Integrating by parts and using te fact tat z Zβ and ψ Zβ are linear on eac element T sows tat 0 = ( (κ ψ), z)t = (κ ψ, z)t {{κ ψ}}βe, [[z]]ie [[κ ψ]], {{z}}1 βe ieo. (4.2) Hence, from te definition (3.2) of te Zβ space, it follows tat (κ ψ, z)t = {{κ ψ}}βe, [[z]]ie = {{κ z}}βe, [[ψ]]ie z, ψ Zβ. (4.3) Substituting te above identity in te definition of te bilinear form (2.9) ten leads to A0 (z, ψ) = θ[[z]], {{κ ψ}}βe ie + Pe0 ([[z]]), κe [[ψ]]ie = θ(κ ψ, z)t + Pe0 ([[ψ]]), κe [[z]]ie = A0 (ψ, z). Tis sows te symmetry of A0 (, ) on Zβ. Te symmetry for A(, ) on Zβ ten follows from te result for A0 (, ), since te difference between tese bilinear forms is obviously symmetric.

13 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 13 We now study te conditioning of te bilinear forms A(, ) and A 0 (, ) on Z β. For all z Z β, and for all φ Z β wit z = e E z e ψ z e Z β, and φ = e E φ e ψ z e Z β. we introduce a weigted scalar product (, ) : Z β Z β IR and te corresponding norm, defined as follows (z, φ) := e E e e κ e z e φ e, z 2 := (z, z). (4.4) Observe tat te matrix representation of te above weigted scalar product (in te basis given in (3.5)), is in fact a diagonal matrix. Te next result sows tat te restrictions of A(, ) and A 0 (, ) to Z β are spectrally equivalent to te weigted scalar product (, ) and terefore teir matrix representations are spectrally equivalent to a diagonal matrix. Lemma 4.3. Let Z β be te space defined in (3.2). Ten for all z Z β, te following estimates old z 2 A 0 (z, z) z 2, (4.5) and also z 2 A(z, z) z 2. (4.6) Proof. Let us fix z Z β, z = e E z e ψe. z From te definition of Pe 0 ([z ]) 2 0,e, it is immediate to see tat Pe 0 ([z ]) 2 0,e = e ze. 2 Tus, we ave tat κ e 1 e Pe 0 ([z ]) 2 0,e = e κ e z e. 2 (4.7) e e E e E From tis relation it is easy to sow bot estimates (4.5) and (4.6). First, to sow (4.5), we notice tat taking into account (4.3) togeter wit te estimate (2.8), it follows tat κ T z 2 0,T = (κ z, z) T = {κ z } βe, [z ] E = κ e { z }, Pe 0 ([z ]) E T T 1/2 κ T z 2 1/2 0,T κ e 1/2 e Pe 0 ([z ]) 2 0,e T T e E and terefore, κ T z 2 0,T κ e e 1/2 Pe 0 ([z ]) 2 0,e = z 2, (4.8) T T e E and since z Z β was arbitrary, we ave tat A 0 (z, z) z 2, for all z Z β and tis proves te upper bound in (4.5). To prove te lower bound, we use te coercivity estimate for te bilinear form A 0 (, ) in te energy norm 2 DG0 [see (2.18)]. For all z Z β we ave A 0 (z, z) z 2 DG0 = κ T z 2 0,T + κ e e 1/2 Pe 0 ([z ]) 2 0,e T T e E e E κ e 1/2 e P 0 e ([z ]) 2 0,e = z 2. Since tis is te desired bound we conclude te proof of (4.5). Te proof of (4.6) follows easily from te spectral equivalence between A(, ) and A 0 (, ) given in Lemma 2.2.

14 14 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV Observe tat last result guarantees tat te linear systems on Z β can be efficiently solved by preconditioned CG (PCG) wit a diagonal preconditioner. As a corollary of te result in Lemma 4.3, te number of PCG iterations will be independent of bot te mes size and te variations in te PDE coefficient. We now sow tat in te particular case of IIPG-0 metod, te matrix representation of A 0 (, ) on Z β is itself a diagonal matrix. Lemma 4.4. Let A 0 (, ) be te bilinear form of te non-symmetric IIPG(β) Type-0 metod (2.9) wit θ = 0. Let {ψe} z e E be te basis for te space Z β as defined in (3.5). Let A zz 0 be te matrix representation in tis basis of te restriction to te subspace Z β of te operator associated to A 0 (, ). Ten, A zz 0 is diagonal. Proof. Note tat from te definition (2.9) of te metod (θ = 0) togeter wit (4.3) we ave A 0 (z, ψ) = ( z, ψ) T { z } βe, [ψ ] E + α e 1 e κ e Pe 0 ([z ]), Pe 0 ([ψ ]) E = α e 1 e κ e Pe 0 ([z ]), Pe 0 ([ψ ]) E z, ψ Z β. (4.9) Let {ψe} z {e E } be te basis functions (3.5). To prove tat A zz 0 is diagonal it is enoug to sow tat for te basis functions (3.5), te following relation olds: A 0 (ψ z e, ψ z e ) = c eδ e,e c e 0, e E, (4.10) were δ e,e is te delta function associated wit te edge/face e. We now sow (4.10). Observe tat te supports of ψe z and ψe z ave empty intersection unless e, e T for some T T. Let T Ω = be an interior element, ten from (4.9) and te mid-point integration rule, we ave A 0 (ψe, z ψe z ) = α e 1 e κ e Pe 0 ([ψe z ])Pe 0 ([ψe z ]) = α e 1 e κ e [2ψe(m z e )][2ψe z (m e)] e = 4α e 1 e κ e δ e,e e, e T e, e E o, wic sows (4.10) for interior edges wit c e = 4α e 1 e κ e. For boundary edges/faces te considerations are essentially te same and terefore omitted. Te proof is complete since te relation (4.10) readily implies tat te off-diagonal terms of A zz 0 are zero. We remark tat tis lemma will be essential for proving te uniform convergence of te iterative solvers for te non-symmetric metods. 5. Robust preconditioners on V CR In tis section we develop efficient and robust solvers for te solution in te CR space. By virtue of te spectral equivalence between A and A 0 given in Lemma 2.2, it is enoug to focus on te development of solvers for A 0 restricted to te subspace V CR and tis is wat we do next. Observe tat te restriction of A 0 (, ) to te subspace V CR reduces to te P 1 -nonconforming finite element discretization of (1.1) Find u V CR : A 0 (u, w) = (κ u, w) T = (f, w) w V CR. (5.1) We denote A CR 0 as te operator induced by (5.1). For te analysis tat follows, we need te following semi-norms and norms for any v V CR : v 2 1,,κ := κ T v 2 0,T, v 2 1,,Ω i := v 2 0,T, (5.2) T T T T, T Ω i v 2 0,κ : = M κ Ωi v 2 0,Ω i, v 2 1,,κ := v 2 0,κ + v 2 1,,κ. (5.3) i=1 If te coefficient κ(x) is a constant or a smoot function; one can find some uniform preconditioners in te literature (see te references in [9]). Te case of jump coefficients κ as also

15 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 15 been considered by several autors [67], [66], wit te assumption on te quasi-uniformity in te coefficients. Since (5.1) is a symmetric problem, from te classical teory of PCG we know tat te convergence rates of te iterative metod wit preconditioner, say B, for A CR 0 are fully determined, in te worst case scenario, by te condition number of te preconditioned system: K(BA CR 0 ). However, for problems wit large jumps in te coefficient κ, it as also been observed in [50, 80] tat te spectrum σ(ba CR 0 ) migt contain a few very small eigenvalues, wic result in a extremely large value of K(BA CR 0 ) (independently of ow fine is te mes), but tey seem to ave no influence on te efficiency of te preconditioner and te overall convergence of te iterative metod. Terefore, following te approac introduced in [80], we consider te asymptotic convergence rate of te PCG algoritm, wic is determined by te so-called effective condition number, as defined below in Definition 5.1. Te setting tat we need for te analysis require some more preliminaries. Let us first briefly review few standard results for te PCG algoritm. Suppose tat te spectrum of BA CR 0, σ(ba CR 0 ), is divided in two sets: σ(ba CR 0 ) = σ 0 (BA CR 0 ) σ 1 (BA CR 0 ), were σ 0 (BA CR 0 ) = {λ 1,..., λ m0 } contains of all very small (often referred to as bad ) eigenvalues and te remaining eigenvalues (bounded above and below) are in σ 1 (BA CR 0 ) = {λ m0 +1,..., λ N } ; tat is λ j [a, b] for j = m 0 + 1,..., N, wit N = dim(v CR ) = n E n BE. Ten, te error at te k-t iterate of te PCG algoritm is bounded by (see e.g. [6, 52, 7]): u u k 1,,κ 2(K(BA CR 0 ) 1) m 0 ( b/a 1 b/a + 1 ) k m0 u u 0 1,,κ. (5.4) From te above estimate, one may conclude te following: If tere are only a few small eigenvalues of BA CR 0 in σ 0 (BA CR 0 ), ten te asymptotic convergence rate of te resulting PCG metod will be dominated by te factor b/a 1 b/a+1, i.e. by b/a were b = λ N (BA CR 0 ) and a = λ m0 +1(BA CR 0 ). Te quantity (b/a) wic determines te asymptotic convergence rate is often called effective condition number and its formal definition follows. Definition 5.1. Let V be a real N-dimensional Hilbert space, and A : V V be a symmetric positive definite linear operator, wit eigenvalues 0 < λ 1 λ N. Te m 0 -t effective condition number of A is defined by K m0 +1(A) := λ N(A) λ m0 +1(A). We note tat tis caracteristic was previously used in te context of deflation based preconditioner (for determining te asymptotic convergence rate of PCG for semidefinite systems [46]). In our analysis of two-level and multilevel preconditioners for problem (5.1), we will mainly focus on estimating te effective condition number. Related works wic derive estimates on te effective condition number in te context of multigrid and domain decomposition metods for conforming discretizations are [50, 80, 82]. To improve te flow of te discussion wen presenting te analysis of te multilevel preconditioner for te nonconforming discretizations, we start by introducing a two level metod and provide a detailed analysis and bounds of te condition number of te preconditioned system Two level preconditioner for A 0 (, ) on V CR. In tis subsection we will construct an additive preconditioner (parallel subspace correction metod) wit a conforming space V conf V CR as a coarse space plus a pointwise relaxation (point-jacobi or Gauss-Seidel metod). More precisely to define te two level parallel subspace correction metod, we consider te following

16 16 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV overlapping space decomposition of V CR : V CR = V CR + V conf. (5.5) Here, we allow for different : one could set =, or coose a coarser approximation i.e., = H >. In addition we will assume ere tat te meses T and are nested. On V T conf we consider te standard conforming P 1 -approximation to (1.1): Find χ V conf suc tat a(χ, η) := A 0 (χ, η) = κ χ ηdx = (f, η), η V conf. (5.6) Ω Te bilinear form given above defines an energy scalar product and its naturally induced weigted semi-norm is: χ 2 1,κ,D := κ χ 2 dx, χ H 1 (D), D Ω. (5.7) D We next discuss te matrix form of te additive preconditioner and ten its operator form. Te reason for discussing bot tese equivalent forms is tat te matrix form is used to implement te metod, wile te operator form is more suitable for te analysis and te spectral equivalence results tat we prove Definition of te preconditioner: Matrix notation. We begin by introducing te necessary notation pertaining to vectors and matrices. We write A CR 0 = A vv 0 = D 0 L L t were D 0, and L are te diagonal and te strict lower triangular part of te stiffness matrix A CR 0 representing te restriction of A 0 (, ) on V CR. We use similar notation for te space V conf denoting by A C te stiffness matrix representing te bilinear form a(, ) on te conforming space V conf. For v V CR, v(x) = e E o v e ϕ CR e (x), we denote by v IR n CR te vector of degrees of freedom of v(x), tat is v as components {v e } e E o. Here n CR = n E n BE is te dimension of te space V CR and we sall denote by n C te dimension of V conf. Te latter dimension is equal to te number of interior vertices in te triangulation wit mes size. We ten ave te following relation between stiffness matrices and bilinear forms and vector representations of degrees of freedom: (A CR 0 v, w) l2 = A 0 (v, w), (A C χ, η) l2 = a(χ, η). (5.8) Tese identities old for all v V CR and w V CR and teir vectors of degrees of freedom, v IR n CR and w IR n CR, as well as for all χ V conf, and all η V conf and te respective vectors of degrees of freedom χ IR n C and η IR n C. Since te conforming finite element functions are in V CR, we may expand eac of te canonical basis functions from V conf via te basis in V CR. Te coefficients in suc expansions form a matrix Π IR n CR n c wic represents te natural inclusion operator V conf V CR. Te additive preconditioner B : IR n CR IR n CR is ten defined in te usual manner: B := D Π(A C ) 1 Π t. (5.9) Denoting by N 0 (T ) te set of interior vertices of T we see tat te following relation olds for all p N 0 (T ) and p N 0 (T ): [A C ] p,p = a(ϕ p, ϕ p ) = [ Π T A CR Π ] p,p, i.e. A C = Π T A CR Π. (5.10)

17 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP Definition of te preconditioner: Operator notation. We first consider te operator R 1 corresponding to te Jacobi smooter. We note tat te usual definition of te operator associated wit Jacobi relaxation requires additional notation, including introducing mass matrices and oter objects, wic are not actually used in te implementation of te algoritms. To avoid introducing tese extra quantities, we will take a sligtly different pat and we define R 1 A CR 0 instead of R 1. We set: R 1 A CR 0 v = e E o A 0 (v, ϕ CR e ) A 0 (ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e ) ϕcr e = e [A CR 0 v] e [A CR ϕ CR e (5.11) 0 ] e,e It is clear from tis definition tat te vector of degrees of freedom for te function R 1 A CR 0 v is D 1 0 ACR 0 v, wic precisely sows tat te matrix representation of R 1 is D 1 0. We next consider te operator corresponding to te correction from te conforming space. For its definition we need to introduce te standard A 0 (, )-ortogonal and L 2 (Ω)- V conf ortogonal projections on V conf Tey are defined for any v V CR. Let us denote tese projections wit P C and Q C, respectively. and [P C v] V conf and [Q C v] V conf are as follows: a([p C v], η) = A 0 (v, η), ([Q C v], η) = (v, η), η V conf. (5.12) Te operator form of te preconditioner is ten B : V CR V CR, B := R 1 + (A C ) 1 Q C. (5.13) We also ave te following identity, wic follows directly from te definition of Q C and P C : Q C A CR 0 = A C P C. (5.14) Multiplying from te rigt te defining relation for B in (5.13) wit A CR 0 and using te above relation (5.14) we ave tat BA CR 0 := R 1 A CR 0 + P C. (5.15) From te definitions given above it is immediate to sow tat te vector of degrees of freedom corresponding to te function BA CR 0 v is BA CR 0 v, were v is te vector of degrees of freedom for v(x). Tis togeter wit (5.8) sows tat te following identity olds for any v V CR (BA CR 0 v, A CR 0 v) l2 (A CR = A0(BACR 0 v, v) (5.16) 0 v, v) l2 A 0 (v, v) Note tat te left side of tis identity uses te l 2 inner product on IR n CR, wile calculating te rigt side is done troug te bilinear form A 0 (, ) Spectral equivalence results for te two level preconditioner. We recall definition of te set of indices I of floating subdomains (see [71]) wic are te subdomains were te coefficient is constant and wic do not touc te Diriclet boundary: : I := { i : meas d 1 ( Ω Ω i ) = 0 }. (5.17) Te role of te set I will be clear from te convergence analysis given later on in tis section. Te main spectral equivalence result for te two level preconditioner is as follows. Teorem 5.2. Let m 0 = I be te total number of floating subdomains. Ten, te effective condition number K eff (BA CR 0 ) := K m0 +1(BA CR 0 ) for te preconditioner B defined in (5.13) is uniformly bounded: K m0 +1(BA 0 ) (1 + log 2 / ) C, for, wit C > 0 independent of te coefficients.

18 18 B. AYUSO DE DIOS, M. HOLST, Y. ZHU, AND L. ZIKATANOV Te rest of te section is devoted to te proof of Teorem 5.2, wic essentially involves sowing spectral equivalence of te form A 0 (v, v) (B 1 v, v) A 0 (v, v). It can be sown (see Appendix B, Lemma B.2) tat te inverse of B satisfies: (B 1 v, v) = inf χ V conf [R(v χ, v χ) + a(χ, χ)], (5.18) were R(, ) is te bilinear form associated wit te smooter and is defined as: R(v, w) := (Rv, w). In te Appendix B (see Lemma B.1) it will be sown tat for all v V CR we ave R(v, v) = e E o A 0 (ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e )ve(d 2 0 v, v) l2. (5.19) From te above considerations it is clear tat te proof of Teorem 5.2 amounts to verifying te following two conditions. (F1) Tere exists a constant c 1 suc tat for all v V CR (F2) For every v V CR c 1 1 A 0(v, v) R(v, v). tere exists χ v V conf we ave (depending on v), suc tat R(v χ v, v χ v ) + a(χ v, χ v ) c 0 A 0 (v, v). We remark ere tat te identity (5.18) is a well known result regarding two level additive Scwarz metods (cf. [79], [71], [69]). Te validation of last assumption (F2) is more intricate and we postpone it to te next subsection, wile te Lemma stated next sows tat (F1) is true for our coice of R(, ), and also gives an inequality wic will later be used to verify (F2). Lemma 5.3. Let R(, ) be te bilinear form defined via (5.19). Ten we ave te following estimates c 1 1 A 0(v, v) R(v, v) and R(v, v) 2 v 2 0,κ, v V CR. (5.20) Proof. To sow tat (F1) olds we set w = e w eϕ CR e and Caucy-Scwarz and te aritmeticgeometric inequalities give A 0 (v, v) = A 0 (ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e )v ev e e e A 0 (ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e ) A 0 (ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e )v e v e e 1 2 = e e e e e [ A0 (ϕ CR e A 0 (ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e )ve 2 e )ve 2 + A 0 (ϕ CR e, ] ϕcr e )v2 e A 0 (ϕ CR e, ϕ CR e )ve 2 = R(v, v). Te constant idden in te above only depends on te number of neigboring faces e, for a given face e E o and tis constant is bounded by 5 in 2D and 7 in 3D. Notice tat since te mes is quasi-uniform, for any V CR v = e v eϕ CR e and T T we ave v 2 0,κ,T ve ϕ 2 CR e 2 0,κ,T. (5.21) e T

19 MG FOR DG WITH JUMP 19 On one and, for any basis function ϕ CR e by te inverse inequality (see [30]) we ave tat: 2 ϕ CR e 2 0,κ,T ϕcr e 2 0,κ,T. On te oter and, directly calculating te norms gives us te following bound ϕ CR e 2 0,κ,T 2 ϕ CR e 2 0,κ,T. Hence, T T e T 2 ϕ CR e 2 0,κ,T ϕ CR e 2 0,κ,T. (5.22) Terefore from te definition of R(, ) given in (5.19) and te equivalence relations (5.21) and (5.22) we get R(v, v) = ve ϕ 2 CR e 2 0,κ = ve 2 ϕ CR e 2 0,κ,T e e T e = ve ϕ 2 CR e 2 0,κ,T 2 ve ϕ 2 CR e 2 0,κ,T 2 T T v 2 0,κ,T = 2 v 2 0,κ. T T e T 5.2. A stable Decomposition. In tis subsection we sow tat condition (F2) is satisfied and te main tool is an operator P : V CR V conf, tat will be sown to satisfy certain approximation and stability properties as stated in te next Lemma. Lemma 5.4. Tere exists an interpolation operator P following approximation and stability properties: : V CR V conf, tat satisfies te Approximation: (I P )v 0,κ C a log 2 / 1/2 v 1,,κ, v V CR, (5.23) Stability: P v 1,κ C s log 2 / 1/2 v 1,,κ v V CR, (5.24) wit constants C a and C s independent of te coefficient κ and mes size. Te definition of suc P and te proof of te above result is given in te Appendix A. We would like to point out tat te operator P is not used in te actual implementation of te preconditioner B, as is plainly seen from (5.9). However, te operator P and its approximation and stability properties play crucial role in te analysis. We now discuss and display te main ingredients in te proof of condition (F2), wit te aid of Lemma (5.4). Observe tat on te rigt and side of (5.23) and (5.24), te bounds are given in terms of te weigted full H 1 -norm v 1,,κ. In general, one cannot replace te norm v 1,,κ by te energy semi-norm v 1,,κ, unless some stronger conditions on te coefficients (like quasi-monotonicity) are imposed. To be able to replace te full norm by te semi-norm, we introduce te subspace Ṽ CR V CR : { } Ṽ CR := v V CR : vdx = 0, i I, (5.25) Ω i were I is te set of indexes of te floating subdomains as defined in (5.17). Recall tat a floating subdomain is a subdomain wose boundary does not intersect te Diriclet boundary. Te key feature of te subspace we ave just introduced is tat te Poincaré-Friedrics inequality for te nonconforming finite element space [37, 18] olds on eac subdomain, and tis allows us to replace te full norm v 1,,κ by te energy semi-norm v 1,,κ, for any v Ṽ CR. We sould remark tat te condition on te average, i.e. Ω i vdx = 0, is not essential; oter type of conditions could be used (see [71]) as long as tey allow for te application of a Poincarè-type inequality.